Mission (Almost) Impossible

As George W. Bush arrived in the Middle East today—his first trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories since taking office—at least he had one thing going for him: rock-bottom expectations. The U.S. president stepped off the plane in Tel Aviv touting the visit as "a new opportunity for peace here in the Holy Land," but he'll be hard pressed to sell that message to the region's war-weary skeptics. Since the Annapolis peace summit fizzled last November, Israelis and Palestinians have looked closer to being on the verge of a renewed conflict than they have in months. Shortly after the conference last fall, Israel announced plans to expand Har Homa, a key settlement in East Jerusalem; last week a long-range Katyusha rocket launched from Gaza landed deep in Israeli territory; and the Israeli military has been conducting increasingly deadly raids into the West Bank and Gaza. Rob Malley, an aide to President Clinton during the Camp David peace talks and now program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the nonpartisan International Crisis Group, sees little to be optimistic about as Bush's trip kicks off. He spoke with NEWSWEEK's Kevin Peraino. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Do you expect anything significant to come out of this trip?
Rob Malley: In hindsight, I think it may be seen as the Iraq-Iran trip. That might be the focal point. It's above all a check-the-box trip [to Israel]. He hasn't been to Israel and the Palestinian territories since he's been president. If he were to wait, things could break down—it could be too late. Frankly, nothing has happened since Annapolis, politically.

In a perfect world, where would the parties be right now?
For all the good intentions, to a large extent this is a virtual peace process almost wholly detached from the realities. Gaza is under Hamas. In the West Bank most of the control is guaranteed by the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]. [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas has major challenges. [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert is not in the strongest state. At a minimum, you need a much more engaged, decisive, constant U.S. effort. There is a disconnect between aspirations and reality.

What do you make of the news of the past few weeks?
If you and I had spoken last fall and said, "What are the things that can get in the way of this process?" I would have said: increased rocket fire, settlement activity, killing of Israelis. That's the negative side. And on the positive side there's been very little. Right now you have three dynamics working against each other. The first is between Israel and the Palestinians—really, Israel and [Abbas's party] Fatah—that's one process. The second is the dynamic between Fatah and Hamas. The third is between the authorities in Gaza: Hamas and Israel. Each one is impeding the other. There's always one of the three actors who's ready to sabotage the process. It's very hard to see how things proceed smoothly.

As a former negotiator, how frustrating is it to hold these kinds of talks against the backdrop of Israeli military raids into Gaza?
I think [the Americans] were more frustrated with the [settlement] announcements. It's the worst time, worst way, worst place. The symbolism of building in Har Homa was particularly painful for the Americans. It's a bit more difficult for the Americans to second-guess the Israelis on security. I think they'll more likely take them up on the settlement issue and the outposts. These are black-and-white issues where Israel is simply not living up to its commitments. On the other side, is [Palestinian Prime Minister Salam] Fayyad doing enough on the security side? Is Israel acting with some justification? Those are harder issues for the American administration to take a clear-cut view on.

How likely do see the prospect of a full-fledged Israeli invasion into Gaza?
The biggest risk of a conflagration right now is a broader conflict between Hamas and Israel. One rocket hits a school, and whatever reluctance to invade that exists right now will disappear.